Natalia Arriaga |
Madrid, Feb 7 (EFE) , a measure that has never worked in favor of the cause for which it was summoned. History proves it so.
Neither the boycott of Melbourne’56 (seconded by Spain) ended the Soviet occupation of Hungary, nor did the boycott of Montreal’76 put an end to ‘apartheid’ in South Africa, nor did the boycott of Moscow’80 put an end to the presence of the USSR in Afghanistan. Given this background, it is unrealistic to think that a boycott of Paris 2024 would hasten the end of the war in Ukraine.
The only ones harmed in the great Olympic boycotts of the 20th century were the thousands of athletes who had to put their dreams on hold, and sometimes put an end to their careers, to obey the political goals of their governments.
A violation of the Olympic Charter
The boycott is a flagrant violation of the Olympic Charter, the ‘constitution’ of the sport, which in its article 27.3 says that all the national committees of the world “have the obligation to participate in the Games of the Olympiad, sending their athletes”.
The consequences of not doing so are immediate. North Korea knows this well, which did not attend the last Tokyo 2020 Games, not even because of a boycott admitted as such, but with the excuse of “protecting athletes from the coronavirus”, and which was suspended until last 31 September. December 2022. No funds, no aid, no international presence.
The effects of boycotting a Games go beyond those Games and can weigh down the country involved in sports for years.
“The objective of Olympism is to always put sport at the service of the harmonious development of the human being, in order to favor the establishment of a peaceful society committed to the maintenance of human dignity”, says the Olympic Charter in its introduction.
“Since sport is an activity that is part of society, sports organizations within the Olympic Movement must apply the principle of political neutrality,” he adds.
An option that Ukraine does not rule out
The mere opening for athletes from the invading country, Russia, and its ally Belarus to attend the Paris Games, even without their national symbols and with neutral status, has been furiously received by the Ukrainian government and its sports authorities. .
The president of the Ukrainian Olympic Committee, Vadym Guttsait, has said that it is too early to formalize a position, but has admitted that Ukraine could resort to a boycott as a “last resort”. The Olympic fencing champion in Barcelona’92 cannot imagine his athletes sharing the court with a Russian rival in Paris.
Volodimir Zelensky, President of Ukraine, does not believe that there is “such a thing as neutrality when there is a war going on.”
«We already know how tyrannies use sport for their ideological interests. It is obvious that any neutral flag of Russian athletes will be stained with blood. I invite Mr. Thomas Bach (IOC President) to Bakhmut to see with his own eyes that neutrality does not exist,” he added, referring to the enclave in the Donestk region where the Russian and Ukrainian armies are fighting hard.
The allusion to the boycott set off alarm bells in the International Olympic Committee, whose response was clear: “It is very unfortunate that the discussion is ignited with a boycott threat at this premature stage. The participation of individual neutral athletes with Russian or Belarusian passports in the Paris 2024 Olympic Games has not yet been discussed.”
“The threat to boycott the Olympic Games, which the NOC of Ukraine is currently considering, goes against the foundations of the Olympic Movement and the principles it stands for. A boycott is a violation of the Olympic Charter,” the IOC said in a statement, in which it also recalled that “at this time there are no United Nations sanctions in force against Russia and Belarus.”
maximum prudence
The decision to explore ways that allow the return to competition of Russians and Belarusians and the reaction to the Ukrainian position have been disseminated by the IOC in long statements, with very measured words and data to support its position, including United Nations resolutions.
Prudence is maximum: there are no more public statements by the members of the IOC, no one leaves the official channel. Not a word from Sergey Bubka, member of the IOC for Ukraine and in charge of the Solidarity Fund created to distribute aid to his compatriot athletes.
The positions are much more evident in the political sphere. The governments of Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, countries geographically close to the war, lead a movement against the participation of Russians and Belarusians in international competitions. But even they believe that a boycott is an option with little chance of success.
On February 10, a meeting of European Sports Ministers will be held, convened by the United Kingdom, to study a joint position on the opening proposed by the IOC.
The United States and Canada have been reluctantly willing to allow the participation of Russians and Belarusians under a neutral flag. In the case of the United States, which will organize the Games in Los Angeles in 2028 and which aspires to host the winter Games in Salt Lake City in 2030 or 2034, its alignment with the IOC’s position is logical.
The federations, in favor of readmission
The last word on the readmission of Russian and Belarusian athletes is held by the international federations, which have initially sided with the IOC.
It is the federations that must authorize the registration of athletes and regulate their participation in pre-Olympic tournaments, already underway in most sports.
On March 3, an assembly of the Association of Summer Olympic Federations (ASOIF) has been convened to adopt a resolution. The Ukrainian Olympic Committee has admitted that it will try to convince them to rule against reinstatement. And the Russian Sports Minister, Oleg Matitsin, has pointed out that this is “interference” and an attempt to take the federations “as hostages” to impose “political conditions” on them.
As for the national committees, even those who are against the return of Russians and Belarusians, in the case of the Dane, have recognized that their position is the minority.
A statement against war
One of the conditions imposed by the IOC to accept Russian and Belarusian athletes is “that they have not actively supported the war.”
Various groups have criticized the ambiguity of this premise, taking into account the close links between Russian President Vladimir Putin and sports in his country. Is going to a Putin reception actively supporting the war?
The Olympic body has had to acknowledge that the concept is not yet defined: “No decision has been made. It will be necessary to elaborate and decide how the details could be. It is premature to answer this question at this time.”
A group of Belarusian athletes critical of their government has turned the issue around, proposing that athletes must sign a declaration against the war in order to acquire “neutral” status.
But this would force to signify athletes who would be singled out and who, although they may not live or train in Russia, have their families or businesses there. There is no solution that does not imply new problems.
five big boycotts
The shadow of the boycott seemed forgotten since the complete unification of the Olympic Movement was achieved in Barcelona’92.
The first boycott, at the Melbourne’56 Games, was actually three. One, due to the intervention in the Sinai peninsula after its nationalization by Egypt; another, seconded by Spain, due to the Soviet invasion of Hungary to quell the democratic revolution; and the third, decreed by China in protest against the presence of Taiwan in the Games.
China did not participate in Tokyo’64 -for the same reason-, Indonesia -sanctioned by the IOC-, nor North Korea, in solidarity with Indonesia, but the next major veto was the Montreal’76 Games, decided by 29 African countries as a protest against the admission of New Zealand. His rugby team had violated anti-apartheid sanctions by playing a match in South Africa.
The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was the reason given by the United States and its bloc for boycotting the Moscow’80 Games. Among those absent, Federal Germany, Japan, Canada and Norway. Only 80 countries participated.
In response, and “out of fear for the safety of its athletes”, the Soviet bloc boycotted Los Angeles 1984.
Finally, the allied countries of North Korea (Ethiopia, Nicaragua, Cuba, Albania…) did not register in the Seoul ’88 Games.
At the Winter Games in Beijing in February 2022, the United States and some of its partners decreed a “diplomatic boycott” to highlight human rights violations in China, although it did not have any sporting consequences.
